chrome_click

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Click an element' but omits critical details: whether it waits for visibility, behavior on multiple matches, side effects (navigation, form submission), error handling, or tab selection logic. This is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no wasted words, and the primary action is front-loaded. However, it lacks structure: no parameter list, no usage examples, and the second sentence adds minimal value ('Useful for...'). Could use bullet points or parameter grouping.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It only covers 2 parameters superficially. Missing details on tab selection, wait behavior, url/title filtering, and return value (if any) leave the agent guessing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter roles. It only mentions 'CSS selector' (selector) and 'visible text' (text), leaving 6 parameters (exact, tabId, waitMs, debugUrl, urlContains, titleContains) undefined. The agent cannot infer their purpose, especially tabId/filtering parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Click an element') and the two main targeting methods ('by CSS selector or visible text'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like chrome_press (keyboard) and chrome_type (text input) by focusing on clicking, and provides a usage context ('control panels and file-manager buttons').

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like chrome_press (keyboard actions) or chrome_select (selection from dropdowns). The description lacks when-not scenarios, prerequisites, or comparison with siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.